No, I won’t chip in. In our household, we’re comfortable and expect to have a bit of spare change left over when Bonnie and I pass on. But for now, we won’t chip in.

During this fervid election season, I am firmly convinced, politicians would like to share in our inheritance, when that time comes — or sooner. Specifically in my laptop mailbox, I receive regularly tons of emails asking me to take part in a survey. About 80 percent of the items in my “in” box ask our opinion on the presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, with a gratuitous mention of our own former Gov. Gary Johnson thrown in.

The questions are straightforward, but because “C” comes before “T” in the alphabet, some may infer a slight advantage for Hillary, as her name generally appears first.

I enjoy being quizzed on which one has a better plan, which one would be a disaster, which one won the latest debate.

Then, after asking a few demographic questions such as where I live, how many unchained dogs roam the streets of Las Vegas, how old I am, how much I earn, how many zoos are in my hometown and how I’m registered to vote, the questionnaire asks if I’d be willing to “chip in a dollar” to help the cause.

What? I hardly know you and you’re asking for a handout? (Well, slews of people in downtown Las Vegas usually ask that anyway, so the experience of doling for dollars is not totally foreign to me).

My question is: Why ask for a mere dollar? A buck won’t buy even a cup of coffee or a soft drink at most local businesses. Yes, I realize that if 10,000,000 (that’s 10 million) people with laptops pledge a dollar that could amount to a chunk of change, but why not ask only 1,000,000 to donate 10 bucks, or better yet, ask 100,000 to sent $100? Or have only 10,000 people donate . . . well, you can do the math.

I’m by no means a miser, and truth be told, I’m a softie when it comes to parting with money, but this election season, things have become unmanageable.

Each morning, upon checking my email, out of the average of 75 emails I receive, 50 of them plead for money. Some appeals lament that certain billionaires pitch in millions for the other side. If that’s true, how much good will my single dollar do?

The numerous pleas I receive usually start with a modest request — a dollar — but none would object if we contributed more.

The latest plea for money, disguised as a survey, seemed honest and straightforward. I went through three pages of questions, hopeful that I’d get through it without having to commit to having my money change hands.

But the very last item asked if I’d be willing to “chip in a dollar.”

Arrg. Foiled again! And to make matters worse, the only two choices were “yes” and “no.” But it wasn’t solely a “no,” it was a “no, I’d like to contribute more.” Just a plain “no” wasn’t an option.

So how do you readers suggest I slice up my money pie? To be candid, I have donated modest amounts to previous and even current political causes, not to any particular candidate but the organization itself.

This year, however, I’ve pretended our cupboard is bare. If we have only a precious few weeks remaining until the general election, maybe I can save a bit. Meanwhile, we can be assured that the 50-plus appeals we receive each day will disappear the day after election. Occasionally, we receive two or three identical emails from the same organization

And we won’t hear from the again.

Until the next election.

By the way, this topic is strictly about the current political campaigns. I noticed too late that my first donation must have caught the attention of many groups and organizations with hat in hand, hoping for help. That invariably spawns hosts of other mendicants who see people like me as a soft touch, which we often are.

It’s like feeding pigeons. But at least the public gets a brief respite. . . . until the next election.

• • •

A Kentucky writer, Todd Starnes, recently opined on the plan of a public school district near Louisville to drop the valedictory address at its high school graduations because of “unhealthy competition.”

Starnes calls it “Participation Trophy Syndrome” or PTS. The plan would eliminate the valedictorian system because of the deleterious effects on high school seniors who did not quality as the school’s top academic student.

Starnes asks of the Supt. Andrew Melin, who conceived the idea, “Is he serious? Did a kid suffer a concussion while trying to parse a participle?”

Melin posits that, “When students are competing for the Val and the Sal, they’re trying to find ways to maneuver through the system to try and get the best grades they can possibly get, as opposed to taking the course work that’s truly in their own best interest,”

Whereas Starnes concedes that students ought not to load up on easy classes for an easy “A,” he’s curious about the kinds of courses the superintendent believes the youngsters need to take. How much time will it take for the under-achieving students to persuade schools to do away with all grades. And we can go farther: How about letting high school athletic teams play without keeping score? Think of the savings when those expensive electronic boards disappear.

Real life shouldn’t be based on the theory that “everybody receives a trophy just for participating.” Surely, some students work hard, crack the books regularly, turn in their homework and thus earn the chance to shine as the school’s Val or Sal.

Sorry, but life is full of failures and disappointments. If they’re constantly shielded from the least bit of discomfort, pain or humiliation, they’re not likely to find much self-created success in life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *